I WRITE with reference to the literacy campaign and John Clark’s ‘On the Spot’ (ViewPoints, February 7). The literacy campaign is going very well, and John Clark points out the good, hard work of the teachers.

Hang on – is it me, or is the literacy campaign addressing a serious problem in our schools or not? Who gets the ‘praise’ for creating a situation where literacy campaigns are even required then, John?

Has anyone asked why we need a campaign?

I have pointed out before that teachers and parents are working far harder today than they did in the 1950s, to overcome terrible school teaching methods that divide up teachers’ time to a mere fraction of what is required.

This means a teacher’s job is far harder with worse results and far more parent input is required.

Is the campaign’s success due simply to kids getting more hours of repetition approaching the levels I received in infant school in 1958? Does anyone know why the ‘ability set’ system of dividing a class of infants into small groups was allowed to take root, thus depriving all kids of the necessary daily hours of literacy teaching?

The ‘pressure from the politicians’ to which John referred should be sufficient for us to understand that all kids need is sufficient direct teacher time. The ‘ability sets’ deny them this.

S Nicholson, Campbell Road, Oxford